Major updates to QSC scoring

[jesusin]

Some random thoughts about QSC scoring.

- IMHO 1000BC is too late.
When I think of a good start I’m thinking about the first 50 turns, not the first 80 turns. Depending on the map settings, a game might be virtually over by 1000BC. Just an opinion.

- Having secured iron or horses is worth nothing.
This is really surprising to me, if I don’t have them I will surely change my strategy in order to focus on getting them. Strategic resources are strategic priorities in most games. And what about depriving other civs of them? It should have a value too.

- Having reached other continent is worth nothing.
I can not believe it. Imagine this game: continents, I am going for a domination victory. If I am going to win by 300BC, I need a foothold on the other continent long before 1000BC. After 3 suicidal galleys loaded with settler and other unit sink, the fourth one reaches the distant shores. All my efforts are going to be valued with negative score!

- Having killed one civ (or having reduced them to a pitiful single-city-subjugated-tribe) is worth nothing.
If you are a warmonger, you are surely closer to victory than if you had left them live and grow, aren’t you?

- 1food=1shield=1gold
This seems roughly true, but… I can transform food into shields directly (pop rushing). I can transform shields into gold quite easily (think of a 1 shield city producing wealth). But there is not any direct, easy way to turn gold into food. Maybe 1food>1shield>1gold?

- Lots of techs are good for you.
Or aren’t they? There are games where you deliberately slow the pace of the world’s research. You do it on purpose, you know what you are doing. So, why should your score be poorer?

- gpt is worth nothing
It is 1000BC. In a new class of goody hut you find a genius which let’s you choose between an immediate gift of 10 extra gold or 9 extra gpt for the rest of the game. Which one would you choose?
The same goes for shields per turn and extra food per turn. Depending on the expected length of the game, 1gpt could be more valuable than 100g.

- Culture is worth nothing
Taking an enemy city by deflection is as good as taking it by brute force. Why total culture is not valuable in QSC? And what about culture per turn? What about 100K victories?

- Differential scoring proposal.
Maybe (I am not qualified to make a sound assessment) differential scoring would help with some of this problems. I mean, don’t count the total techs you have, but the techs you have compared to other civs. I think the automated scoring software might be able to score not only the human civ but every civ in the game. In that case, extend the differential idea to the maximum. A possible algorithm would be: 1-score every civ 2-forget the better two AI civs and the poorer two AI civs (luck exclusion) 3-calculate mean of remaining AI civs 4-compare human score with that (as a %).

 

[Atreides]

Just a quick question, do workers and settlers also add population points allong with the shield value?
what about a person that likes to work all their land, so at QSC all their cities are tiny because their population is taken up by 20 or so workers for future rapid expansion.

 

[denyd]

Just a quick request for an unpdated QSC scoring spreadsheet. I just noticed the one I'm using is missing all of the C3C units.

 

[ainwood]

Just a quick question, do workers and settlers also add population points allong with the shield value?
what about a person that likes to work all their land, so at QSC all their cities are tiny because their population is taken up by 20 or so workers for future rapid expansion.

Can't remember the exact values, but workers, slaves and settlers are worth their food plus shield totals.

 

[Twonky]

I tried to understand how the scoring works and I think I got most of it.
Yet, I stumbled over some things that don´t really fit in:

1) For GOTM 47 (Germany) Barracks seem to score 40 points (full value, though only 20 shields are needed), while harbours score 40 (reduced value).
2) Cities seem to score 10 points - shouldn´t this be 30?
Edit: 3) No bonus for UU´s?

And I would really like some clarification about the tech values. I just cannot make up myself how those are valued.

 

[Own]

I submitted a QSC, but I didn't know exactly what it was, and I read the rules of it after playing to 1000BC, therefore I didn't have a timeline. I did write a detailed summary of how I placed cities, built workers, tech keeping up, etc, but no dates . Will this be accepted?

Btw, it's for COTM18. And I got a good score too.

 

[AlanH]

@Twonky: I'll try to give a breakdown of the score build-up for your entry, but it's not a simple process, so please give me a day or three. I'm not going to do it for everyone, but maybe an example will be enough to answer some of the questions. It's quite possible that the system is not 100% correct, of course.

@Own: We'll include your entry, since the QSC is not a serious competition, and mainly intended for educational purposes. I do recommend, however, that players in all our competitions take a few minutes to read the relevant rules and references. We try to keep them to a minimum, but we can't reduce them to zero, and I think it's rash to assume that you can guess them all .

 

[denyd]

AlanH: Is there a current spreadsheet to assist in QSC calculations? The one I have has no C3C items.

 

[Dianthus]

Depending on what you want, maybe the breakdown in CRpStats would be enough? The QSC tab gives the total QSC score, and the breakdowns for Production, Diplo, Cities, Population, Units, Techs.

 

[AlanH]

AlanH: Is there a current spreadsheet to assist in QSC calculations? The one I have has no C3C items.

'Fraid not. The whole calculation is done by Dianthus' code during your upload.

 

[Own]

Thanks Alan!

I wasn't planning on doing it, so didn't read the rules beforehand, I just looked at the date and said, "Wow, it's 1000BC, isn't there some sort of contest or something?"

 

[denyd]

Is the score a straight line calculation like warriors * 5 + spearman * 10 or are there modifiers like fortified in a city, in neutral ground, built in 3000 BC vs built in 2000 BC?

If it's straightline, is it possible to see the formula?

I'm willing to create a spreadsheet for others to use if I could get access to the formula.

 

[Own]

If you need the QSC score, mapstat tells you...

 

[AlanH]

I'm really not sure what seeing the score formula will do for you. I personally consider the QSC score rather irrelevant. If it were a good indicator of early game performance leading towards a high ultimate game score then there would be a good correlation between the QSC rank and the eventual GOTM rank. I don't think there is.

So, unless you consider a high QSC rank as an end in itself, you would be well advised not to try to maximise your QSC score. By all means, use the QSC as a source of comparative statistics to see how different players developed their early empires, but I see no point in examining the total score and its composition.

are there modifiers like fortified in a city, in neutral ground, built in 3000 BC vs built in 2000 BC?

No. It's a very simple attempt to add up the costs of things you've acquired - techs, units, buildings, territory, cities, population. There's a reference to the Cracker thread where it's explained. FInd it in the GOTM Reference Thread, or on the QSC results page.

 

[denyd]

There are some XOTM's that I know I don't have time to finish so I try to play them for the highest QSC score that I can get and I was trying to maximize my early score knowing that I'll be done at 1000 BC.

I'll look for Cracker's thread, thanks.